So LM have conducted some sort of survey of fans and decided they want the playing field to be more equal - which I agree with, and that they want there to be the possibility of Leicester City type shocks.

I think that's aiming rather too high. I don't necessarily think it's necessary for Sauber to be able to win the Championship, I think it should be possible for Sauber to get on the podium, or to win a race once in a while. But while ever you have works teams and customer teams you are never going to get that much equality.

The key is really having an engine supplier like Cosworth who can produce an engine within spitting distance of the best available to the big boys, until you have that I don't think any budget reprofiling or anything much else is going to do very much at all.

Actually I think having just two teams going head to head (with a third spoiling the party) would be fine if those two teams had two great drivers. Think Mansell/Piquet or Prost/Senna... if it was Alonso/Hamilton vs Vettel/Ricciardo you would have four drivers going for the WDC.

Besides if any team could win the Championship then how do you ensure your 'superstar' driver is in the 'right' team at the right time? The only reason drivers can rack up multiple WDCs is because they've ended up in the right place at the right time, and they 'know' where those places are (Ferrari and Mercedes currently), if the goalposts were constantly changing then you'd get a lot more Alonso-type situations.

_________________Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."

If they want a Leicester City story then why are they talking about introducing cost caps or other restrictions? Part of what made Leicester's achievement so special is they did it in spite of the massive amounts of money the bigger teams spend on transfers, wages, youth/training facilities, stadiums, etc.

Sauber wouldn't be 'doing a Leicester' if they win the WCC because something (a budget cap, restrictions on development, etc.) has been introduced to try and level the playing field.

What exactly are we talking about here? It is all about motor racing. A couple of days ago I watched some UEFA matches. One was a blowout, at four minutes the bloodletting began, and I switched away from that. But there was another match that was totally enthralling, top tier stuff from the start to the referee's whistle. When you strip away the stadium, the fans, the pre-game hype, in the end all you have is the product, a match. And nothing else matters.

Formula One has oodles of money, lots of hype, teams spending fortunes on technology, yet the final product, the actual racing on track is abysmal. How pathetic can a product be when the main talking point is a crash? It happened even before lap one, turn one, yet what followed after is basically a forgettable grey haze. Where is the excitement in that, why did I waste the next two hours watching the race?

Formula One and it's fans can brag that "we have this, and we have that, and this is the best in the world". But as far as the final product, the actual racing and competition, Formula One falls short of about every racing series on this globe.

No amount of small tweaks can cure the cancer, a major reconstruction must be done if Formula One can regain any prestige as the premier racing series. Fortunately Liberty are beginning to come to that conclusion, that the status quo leads to pathetic action on track. Liberty are working on saving the sport, one that has stared at it's navel so long it fails to grok that it no longer serves the fans.

And in order to bring back truly exciting RACING, parity must be sought. Consistent and predictable outcomes drive the fans away. Guess who is going to win Malaysia, barring misfortune? So why on earth should I waste my time watching a race where I already know who will finish first, who will finish second, and who will finish third? bleah, I will record the race, and maybe watch it as an excuse from doing chores.

In any sporting competition, the outcome should be uncertain. In any one event, anyone should have the opportunity to win. That makes it worth tuning in.

As a counter to my rant, in the final tally the cream rises to the top, over a season the best do come to the fore and are the ones contending for championships.

The environment where uncertainty and unpredictability is prevalent makes any sport worth watching.

Formula one is not like football. A very good well organised team (Leicester) can beat better teams week after week especially once they get some momentum and especially when the other big teams are playing 2 games per week to Leicesters 1 due to Champions League/ Europe league commitments. Small teams also regularly beat bigger teams, Chelsea have already lost at home to Burnley and Arsenal away at Stoke.

Formula one is much more objective and ordered, if you are 0.5 a lap slower, there is literally nothing you can do. You might win a race or two in a season when the faster car has bad luck or a mechanical issue. Its unlikely to entirely dominant a race and lose, unlike in Football where this happens regularly.

Leicester City winning the EPL was a one-off and very unlikely to happen again, it was down to good management and players playing for each other and not spending the millions like Chelsea - Man Utd - Man City etc

What maybe could happen is like in British Touring Car weight being added to the winning cars?

I'm just hoping that they are not looking to make F1 more like Indycars were every race is basically a lottery.

This would only happen if they brought back refuelling and a Safety Car came out every time they waved a yellow flag. I don't see it happening

IndyCar is a different philosophy. It rewards consistency over a season

When you talk in terms of being Champion as being the most consistent driver given how the races are run in Indycars I think you can throw in the big luck factor as well.

Not really. The cream rises to the top. The best guy typically wins it every year. Newgarden was the best this year, Pagenaud was the best last year, etc.

Sure they all get unlucky on a given day but over the course of a season it typically balances out

I will say I don't like their double points finale. I would have been one of the biggest detractors of that idea in F1 in 2014

F1 can actually never be as much of a lottery as any oval racing series. Oval races are innately more dependent on luck because of the way incidents can happen so frequently and how easy it is for a driver to drop a lap down during a race.

What exactly are we talking about here? It is all about motor racing. A couple of days ago I watched some UEFA matches. One was a blowout, at four minutes the bloodletting began, and I switched away from that. But there was another match that was totally enthralling, top tier stuff from the start to the referee's whistle. When you strip away the stadium, the fans, the pre-game hype, in the end all you have is the product, a match. And nothing else matters.

Formula One has oodles of money, lots of hype, teams spending fortunes on technology, yet the final product, the actual racing on track is abysmal. How pathetic can a product be when the main talking point is a crash? It happened even before lap one, turn one, yet what followed after is basically a forgettable grey haze. Where is the excitement in that, why did I waste the next two hours watching the race?

Formula One and it's fans can brag that "we have this, and we have that, and this is the best in the world". But as far as the final product, the actual racing and competition, Formula One falls short of about every racing series on this globe.

No amount of small tweaks can cure the cancer, a major reconstruction must be done if Formula One can regain any prestige as the premier racing series. Fortunately Liberty are beginning to come to that conclusion, that the status quo leads to pathetic action on track. Liberty are working on saving the sport, one that has stared at it's navel so long it fails to grok that it no longer serves the fans.

And in order to bring back truly exciting RACING, parity must be sought. Consistent and predictable outcomes drive the fans away. Guess who is going to win Malaysia, barring misfortune? So why on earth should I waste my time watching a race where I already know who will finish first, who will finish second, and who will finish third? bleah, I will record the race, and maybe watch it as an excuse from doing chores.

In any sporting competition, the outcome should be uncertain. In any one event, anyone should have the opportunity to win. That makes it worth tuning in.

As a counter to my rant, in the final tally the cream rises to the top, over a season the best do come to the fore and are the ones contending for championships.

The environment where uncertainty and unpredictability is prevalent makes any sport worth watching.

In a nutshell what you're saying is basically that you don't object to Hamilton (eg) winning regularly because he's the best driver, you object to Hamilton wnning because his 'CAR' is a second a lap faster than everyone else's, well at least that's my view.

_________________Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."

I'm just hoping that they are not looking to make F1 more like Indycars were every race is basically a lottery.

This would only happen if they brought back refuelling and a Safety Car came out every time they waved a yellow flag. I don't see it happening

IndyCar is a different philosophy. It rewards consistency over a season

When you talk in terms of being Champion as being the most consistent driver given how the races are run in Indycars I think you can throw in the big luck factor as well.

Not really. The cream rises to the top. The best guy typically wins it every year. Newgarden was the best this year, Pagenaud was the best last year, etc.

Sure they all get unlucky on a given day but over the course of a season it typically balances out

I will say I don't like their double points finale. I would have been one of the biggest detractors of that idea in F1 in 2014

F1 can actually never be as much of a lottery as any oval racing series. Oval races are innately more dependent on luck because of the way incidents can happen so frequently and how easy it is for a driver to drop a lap down during a race.

IndyCar is predominantly a road course series. Only 6 of this year's 17 races were on ovals. The cautions work the same on both types of track and I don't see F1 ever going down that route. Especially now with VSC

When you talk in terms of being Champion as being the most consistent driver given how the races are run in Indycars I think you can throw in the big luck factor as well.

Not really. The cream rises to the top. The best guy typically wins it every year. Newgarden was the best this year, Pagenaud was the best last year, etc.

Sure they all get unlucky on a given day but over the course of a season it typically balances out

I will say I don't like their double points finale. I would have been one of the biggest detractors of that idea in F1 in 2014

F1 can actually never be as much of a lottery as any oval racing series. Oval races are innately more dependent on luck because of the way incidents can happen so frequently and how easy it is for a driver to drop a lap down during a race.

IndyCar is predominantly a road course series. Only 6 of this year's 17 races were on ovals. The cautions work the same on both types of track and I don't see F1 ever going down that route. Especially now with VSC

Yeah I realize that but that's more than a third of the season. And I agree that F1 won't go that route but I think some effort to make the series more competitive top-to-bottom is a good idea.

What exactly are we talking about here? It is all about motor racing. A couple of days ago I watched some UEFA matches. One was a blowout, at four minutes the bloodletting began, and I switched away from that. But there was another match that was totally enthralling, top tier stuff from the start to the referee's whistle. When you strip away the stadium, the fans, the pre-game hype, in the end all you have is the product, a match. And nothing else matters.

Formula One has oodles of money, lots of hype, teams spending fortunes on technology, yet the final product, the actual racing on track is abysmal. How pathetic can a product be when the main talking point is a crash? It happened even before lap one, turn one, yet what followed after is basically a forgettable grey haze. Where is the excitement in that, why did I waste the next two hours watching the race?

Formula One and it's fans can brag that "we have this, and we have that, and this is the best in the world". But as far as the final product, the actual racing and competition, Formula One falls short of about every racing series on this globe.

No amount of small tweaks can cure the cancer, a major reconstruction must be done if Formula One can regain any prestige as the premier racing series. Fortunately Liberty are beginning to come to that conclusion, that the status quo leads to pathetic action on track. Liberty are working on saving the sport, one that has stared at it's navel so long it fails to grok that it no longer serves the fans.

And in order to bring back truly exciting RACING, parity must be sought. Consistent and predictable outcomes drive the fans away. Guess who is going to win Malaysia, barring misfortune? So why on earth should I waste my time watching a race where I already know who will finish first, who will finish second, and who will finish third? bleah, I will record the race, and maybe watch it as an excuse from doing chores.

In any sporting competition, the outcome should be uncertain. In any one event, anyone should have the opportunity to win. That makes it worth tuning in.

As a counter to my rant, in the final tally the cream rises to the top, over a season the best do come to the fore and are the ones contending for championships.

The environment where uncertainty and unpredictability is prevalent makes any sport worth watching.

In a nutshell what you're saying is basically that you don't object to Hamilton (eg) winning regularly because he's the best driver, you object to Hamilton wnning because his 'CAR' is a second a lap faster than everyone else's, well at least that's my view.

It is amusing how one's brain acts like a filter. Please point out in my post where I mentioned Hamilton. Actually, I will make it easy for you, I never mentioned any driver. My discourse was an overview on the health of the sport, it's long term future and had absolutely nothing to do with the short term drama.

Please understand this, this thread is not about any driver, it is about the health an future of the sport.

What exactly are we talking about here? It is all about motor racing. A couple of days ago I watched some UEFA matches. One was a blowout, at four minutes the bloodletting began, and I switched away from that. But there was another match that was totally enthralling, top tier stuff from the start to the referee's whistle. When you strip away the stadium, the fans, the pre-game hype, in the end all you have is the product, a match. And nothing else matters.

Formula One has oodles of money, lots of hype, teams spending fortunes on technology, yet the final product, the actual racing on track is abysmal. How pathetic can a product be when the main talking point is a crash? It happened even before lap one, turn one, yet what followed after is basically a forgettable grey haze. Where is the excitement in that, why did I waste the next two hours watching the race?

Formula One and it's fans can brag that "we have this, and we have that, and this is the best in the world". But as far as the final product, the actual racing and competition, Formula One falls short of about every racing series on this globe.

No amount of small tweaks can cure the cancer, a major reconstruction must be done if Formula One can regain any prestige as the premier racing series. Fortunately Liberty are beginning to come to that conclusion, that the status quo leads to pathetic action on track. Liberty are working on saving the sport, one that has stared at it's navel so long it fails to grok that it no longer serves the fans.

And in order to bring back truly exciting RACING, parity must be sought. Consistent and predictable outcomes drive the fans away. Guess who is going to win Malaysia, barring misfortune? So why on earth should I waste my time watching a race where I already know who will finish first, who will finish second, and who will finish third? bleah, I will record the race, and maybe watch it as an excuse from doing chores.

In any sporting competition, the outcome should be uncertain. In any one event, anyone should have the opportunity to win. That makes it worth tuning in.

As a counter to my rant, in the final tally the cream rises to the top, over a season the best do come to the fore and are the ones contending for championships.

The environment where uncertainty and unpredictability is prevalent makes any sport worth watching.

In a nutshell what you're saying is basically that you don't object to Hamilton (eg) winning regularly because he's the best driver, you object to Hamilton wnning because his 'CAR' is a second a lap faster than everyone else's, well at least that's my view.

It is amusing how one's brain acts like a filter. Please point out in my post where I mentioned Hamilton. Actually, I will make it easy for you, I never mentioned any driver. My discourse was an overview on the health of the sport, it's long term future and had absolutely nothing to do with the short term drama.

Please understand this, this thread is not about any driver, it is about the health an future of the sport.

You see that (eg) after the name Hamilton?

Let me make it clear for you, that means 'for example'.

My post wasn't intended to be about Hamilton either. Or Vettel or anyone else. But forum politics being what it is I guess in future I'll have to use 'Driver X' instead.

_________________Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."

I dis agree with most of this. The best car or rather car/driver/team should win. That is the whole idea of it. You would not expect the guernsey team to win the Olympic 4x4x400 why should this be different.

I am against artificially boosting teams in the same way I am against artificially penalising teams.

To use the example given, should San Marino win the world cup? I do not follow football, but assume it is like Brawn winning the championship. There is a reason for it.

Nice idea but I think F1 is now too high tech for that to realistically happen. Enormous amounts are spent to eke out the odd tenth here or there Even something as simple - relatively speaking - as a front wing can have an enormous impact on the performance of a car. And they cost over 100K each.

If they want to level the playing field then I don't see how they can do it without making the cars less complex, which I doubt very much they'll (be able to) do. As long as they retain the need for NASA technology, minnows won't get a look in. Engines are a prime example. but it's not restricted solely to them.

I dis agree with most of this. The best car or rather car/driver/team should win. That is the whole idea of it. You would not expect the guernsey team to win the Olympic 4x4x400 why should this be different.

I am against artificially boosting teams in the same way I am against artificially penalising teams.

To use the example given, should San Marino win the world cup? I do not follow football, but assume it is like Brawn winning the championship. There is a reason for it.

It was widely regarded as a 5,000 - 1 chance of it happening, and it happened. So we only need to wait on average 5,000 years and we can have our own Leicester City story in F1.

How many who have commented so far actually read the article rather than reacting to the headline?

While that headline is a direct quote, the content of the whole interview is that they want to bring in budget restrictions and distribute funds better to level the playing field a bit more.

I think the better reference is to the NFL rather than the EPL in terms of what he's talking about. The way teams make money differs greatly between the 2 sports but the way salaries are capped and TV money is distributed keeps small market teams from being out spent and we regularly see teams go from worst to first in their division even if they don't always make it to the championship game.

Prior to salary caps it was common that teams would go years between winning seasons or having a sniff at the playoffs. While that's still possible it rarely happens and when it does it usually comes down to poor management, and not simply lacking the funds to acquire the talent to compete.

It seems like this is what the LM guy is talking about. It would still be a meritocracy and the big teams will on average win the most races and titles, but it will allow smaller teams to get on the podium more regularly on merit rather a rub of the green putting top contenders out of the race or a safety car putting them out of position at the end of the race.

I dis agree with most of this. The best car or rather car/driver/team should win. That is the whole idea of it. You would not expect the guernsey team to win the Olympic 4x4x400 why should this be different.

I am against artificially boosting teams in the same way I am against artificially penalising teams.

To use the example given, should San Marino win the world cup? I do not follow football, but assume it is like Brawn winning the championship. There is a reason for it.

It was widely regarded as a 5,000 - 1 chance of it happening, and it happened. So we only need to wait on average 5,000 years and we can have our own Leicester City story in F1.

I mentioned Brawn above.

It can happen, Panis in Monaco etc, but if a back marker takes a punt at putting tyres on for the long run and the first 4 crash out, that is luck. I think if teams are capable of winning that is fine, but not luck.

I do not know anything of football, but assume they were capable of winning due to skill hard work and yes, luck. Fine in those proportions, but just plain luck, I do not want to see much of. Sometimes its fun, but on a regular basis i prefer a deserving winner, even if its one I do not like.

I dis agree with most of this. The best car or rather car/driver/team should win. That is the whole idea of it. You would not expect the guernsey team to win the Olympic 4x4x400 why should this be different.

I am against artificially boosting teams in the same way I am against artificially penalising teams.

To use the example given, should San Marino win the world cup? I do not follow football, but assume it is like Brawn winning the championship. There is a reason for it.

It was widely regarded as a 5,000 - 1 chance of it happening, and it happened. So we only need to wait on average 5,000 years and we can have our own Leicester City story in F1.

I mentioned Brawn above.

It can happen, Panis in Monaco etc, but if a back marker takes a punt at putting tyres on for the long run and the first 4 crash out, that is luck. I think if teams are capable of winning that is fine, but not luck.

I do not know anything of football, but assume they were capable of winning due to skill hard work and yes, luck. Fine in those proportions, but just plain luck, I do not want to see much of. Sometimes its fun, but on a regular basis i prefer a deserving winner, even if its one I do not like.

I would say something like Fissichella at Spa 09, Maldanado at Spain in 12, Vettel in Monza in 08 are all decent examples.

How many who have commented so far actually read the article rather than reacting to the headline?

While that headline is a direct quote, the content of the whole interview is that they want to bring in budget restrictions and distribute funds better to level the playing field a bit more.

I think the better reference is to the NFL rather than the EPL in terms of what he's talking about. The way teams make money differs greatly between the 2 sports but the way salaries are capped and TV money is distributed keeps small market teams from being out spent and we regularly see teams go from worst to first in their division even if they don't always make it to the championship game.

Prior to salary caps it was common that teams would go years between winning seasons or having a sniff at the playoffs. While that's still possible it rarely happens and when it does it usually comes down to poor management, and not simply lacking the funds to acquire the talent to compete.

It seems like this is what the LM guy is talking about. It would still be a meritocracy and the big teams will on average win the most races and titles, but it will allow smaller teams to get on the podium more regularly on merit rather a rub of the green putting top contenders out of the race or a safety car putting them out of position at the end of the race.

I did read it, and ZB says he is in favour and lists some that would not be. However, those he lists make and develop engines, his team does not.

He mentions the traditional teams money too, and Mclaren are falling way down this list. I think non earned money should be spread better, but earned bonuses should be earned.

A base line team should have enough to stay in, but then if they expect engines, who puts the money into these? Should there be a separate championship for engines with bonuses? This then amounts to the top teams having a second bite of the cake, but for a reason other than just being around 40 years ago. ( or being called Red Bull )

There are many things to consider, and I am glad I do not have to make the decision. Then again, the team bosses maybe have their own agenda too

When you talk in terms of being Champion as being the most consistent driver given how the races are run in Indycars I think you can throw in the big luck factor as well.

Not really. The cream rises to the top. The best guy typically wins it every year. Newgarden was the best this year, Pagenaud was the best last year, etc.

Sure they all get unlucky on a given day but over the course of a season it typically balances out

I will say I don't like their double points finale. I would have been one of the biggest detractors of that idea in F1 in 2014

F1 can actually never be as much of a lottery as any oval racing series. Oval races are innately more dependent on luck because of the way incidents can happen so frequently and how easy it is for a driver to drop a lap down during a race.

IndyCar is predominantly a road course series. Only 6 of this year's 17 races were on ovals. The cautions work the same on both types of track and I don't see F1 ever going down that route. Especially now with VSC

Yeah I realize that but that's more than a third of the season. And I agree that F1 won't go that route but I think some effort to make the series more competitive top-to-bottom is a good idea.

I'd support it provided it was reasonable. I remember Gary Anderson talking about a time when mid-grid teams could go into a weekend believing there was an outside chance, however slim, that they could still win the race if the circumstances were right. Ken Tyrrell raced with the belief he could win until the day he sold up. A lot of that is gone now, mostly due to impressive reliability

A fairer distribution of the wealth would be a positive. But I also hope opening up the regs to allow for innovation is something Brawn is looking at

I dis agree with most of this. The best car or rather car/driver/team should win. That is the whole idea of it. You would not expect the guernsey team to win the Olympic 4x4x400 why should this be different.

I am against artificially boosting teams in the same way I am against artificially penalising teams.

To use the example given, should San Marino win the world cup? I do not follow football, but assume it is like Brawn winning the championship. There is a reason for it.

Perhaps the question is why the 'little' teams bother at all... for the life of me I can't understand why anyone would start an F1 team and I'm pretty sure Gene Haas wonders why he bothered. Maybe that's what worries the new owners, the more entrenched the big boys become the less likely it is for new teams to come in as it looks more and more hopeless and even to get on the back of the grid you probably need $100m+. Look at Williams, a great team that's basically reduced to being Merc's lapdog, how can that be right?

A way needs to be found for works teams to compete equally with non works teams, it wouldn't matter if there were ten works teams fighting to be in F1 but there aren't, and there probably never will be.

_________________Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."

How many who have commented so far actually read the article rather than reacting to the headline?

While that headline is a direct quote, the content of the whole interview is that they want to bring in budget restrictions and distribute funds better to level the playing field a bit more.

I think the better reference is to the NFL rather than the EPL in terms of what he's talking about. The way teams make money differs greatly between the 2 sports but the way salaries are capped and TV money is distributed keeps small market teams from being out spent and we regularly see teams go from worst to first in their division even if they don't always make it to the championship game.

Prior to salary caps it was common that teams would go years between winning seasons or having a sniff at the playoffs. While that's still possible it rarely happens and when it does it usually comes down to poor management, and not simply lacking the funds to acquire the talent to compete.

It seems like this is what the LM guy is talking about. It would still be a meritocracy and the big teams will on average win the most races and titles, but it will allow smaller teams to get on the podium more regularly on merit rather a rub of the green putting top contenders out of the race or a safety car putting them out of position at the end of the race.

I did read it, and ZB says he is in favour and lists some that would not be. However, those he lists make and develop engines, his team does not.

He mentions the traditional teams money too, and Mclaren are falling way down this list. I think non earned money should be spread better, but earned bonuses should be earned.

A base line team should have enough to stay in, but then if they expect engines, who puts the money into these? Should there be a separate championship for engines with bonuses? This then amounts to the top teams having a second bite of the cake, but for a reason other than just being around 40 years ago. ( or being called Red Bull )

There are many things to consider, and I am glad I do not have to make the decision. Then again, the team bosses maybe have their own agenda too

No doubt the difference between what they want to do and what teams will accept is apt to be large because the heavy hitters have so much invested and stand to lose the most. And their clout is much higher than it should be due to Bernie's divide and conquer strategy over the years making arrangements with individual teams.

In an earlier post you said "The best car or rather car/driver/team should win" and under the current system that happens but due to the way things are right now there's only a handful of teams that can afford to develop a car that has a chance of being the best. With a distribution of money the big teams will have less to spend and the small teams have more. While there are plenty of examples of how money doesn't necessarily mean success it sure improves the chances.

The engine/PU constructor is tricky of course. I doubt there's any way to get the manufacturers to separate their racing team from their engine building division which would be the most equitable way to even things in that vein.

In the end I think they're more talking about the difference between the over pace from the fastest car to the slowest being smaller than what it is now. After a quick look at qualifying for the first and most recent races this year the difference between the pole time and the slowest car in Q1 was 6.05 and 6.08. That is a large of a gap to bridge and it's going to be tricky to do and will take more than a couple of years. Lets hope that all of the progress is forward.

How many who have commented so far actually read the article rather than reacting to the headline?

While that headline is a direct quote, the content of the whole interview is that they want to bring in budget restrictions and distribute funds better to level the playing field a bit more.

I think the better reference is to the NFL rather than the EPL in terms of what he's talking about. The way teams make money differs greatly between the 2 sports but the way salaries are capped and TV money is distributed keeps small market teams from being out spent and we regularly see teams go from worst to first in their division even if they don't always make it to the championship game.

Prior to salary caps it was common that teams would go years between winning seasons or having a sniff at the playoffs. While that's still possible it rarely happens and when it does it usually comes down to poor management, and not simply lacking the funds to acquire the talent to compete.

It seems like this is what the LM guy is talking about. It would still be a meritocracy and the big teams will on average win the most races and titles, but it will allow smaller teams to get on the podium more regularly on merit rather a rub of the green putting top contenders out of the race or a safety car putting them out of position at the end of the race.

I think the NFL is a great example of what F1 should be striving for; financial parity between the NFL teams has created one of the most widely-watched sporting competitions in the world and a quick glance a Wikipedia (I don't enjoy American football personally so my knowledge is pretty sketchy) tells me that a different team seems to win every year. The EPL model is similar but the financial playing field is heavily skewed by the massive rewards for playing in the UEFA Champions League and by Middle Eastern oil sheiks and Russian billionaires.

Sure, the 'big teams' will complain about such an idea but the only reason they are the 'big teams' is because they've either been massive beneficiaries of F1's ridiculously skewed funding model for decades or because of investment from a parent company. And in any case these teams would still end up with the biggest budgets as the successful teams with the superstar drivers will pull in much greater merchandising and advertising revenue, but the difference across the grid would be much smaller and the rest of the teams could actually compete instead of resigning themselves to the lower reaches of the points finishes before the weekend has even begun.

Perhaps the top teams are frightened that the likes of Sauber and Force India might be more resourceful than they are and they can't beat them without a commercial model that guarantees them three times the budget?

If Liberty genuinely want to grow F1 (which they obviously do) they need to look at why people don't watch F1 now. One thing is the pay wall, but I bet if you asked 100 sports fans who don't watch F1 now why they don't watch it, a big proportion would give this answer...

"I don't watch it because it's pointless, the same guys win every week."

Really, think about how excited we are that there's two guys this year in contention from different teams. That really shouldn't be as big a deal as it is should it?

_________________Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."

10 times out of 14 so far this season, the top 5 has consisted of a combination of the same 6 drivers.

F1 is boring in the sense that at no point in my 25yrs of watching the sport, has the final outcomes been so predictable as the current. Even going back to 2004 (a season often cited as being boring), we seen 13 different driver finish top 5, and 9 different guys on the podium.

The scope for a midfield driver having a good day and getting a shock podium, or even a win, is much much reduced than even 5yrs ago. Even if bold set ups and strategy calls working out perfectly, the midfield are still racing for 5th place.

10 times out of 14 so far this season, the top 5 has consisted of a combination of the same 6 drivers.

F1 is boring in the sense that at no point in my 25yrs of watching the sport, has the final outcomes been so predictable as the current.

The scope for a midfield driver having a good day and getting a shock podium, or even a win, is much much reduced than even 5yrs ago. Even if bold set ups and strategy calls working out perfectly, the midfield are still racing for 5th place.

Increased reliability plays apart but the gap between cars at the front and the rest is currently massive. Probably the biggest it's beat for over 20 years.

In terms of podiums I've done a little study -

Podiums scored by cars that didn't finish in the top 3 in the constructors championship -

10 times out of 14 so far this season, the top 5 has consisted of a combination of the same 6 drivers.

F1 is boring in the sense that at no point in my 25yrs of watching the sport, has the final outcomes been so predictable as the current.

The scope for a midfield driver having a good day and getting a shock podium, or even a win, is much much reduced than even 5yrs ago. Even if bold set ups and strategy calls working out perfectly, the midfield are still racing for 5th place.

Increased reliability plays apart but the gap between cars at the front and the rest is currently massive. Probably the biggest it's beat for over 20 years.

In terms of podiums I've done a little study -

Podiums scored by cars that didn't finish in the top 3 in the constructors championship -

How many who have commented so far actually read the article rather than reacting to the headline?

While that headline is a direct quote, the content of the whole interview is that they want to bring in budget restrictions and distribute funds better to level the playing field a bit more.

I think the better reference is to the NFL rather than the EPL in terms of what he's talking about. The way teams make money differs greatly between the 2 sports but the way salaries are capped and TV money is distributed keeps small market teams from being out spent and we regularly see teams go from worst to first in their division even if they don't always make it to the championship game.

Prior to salary caps it was common that teams would go years between winning seasons or having a sniff at the playoffs. While that's still possible it rarely happens and when it does it usually comes down to poor management, and not simply lacking the funds to acquire the talent to compete.

It seems like this is what the LM guy is talking about. It would still be a meritocracy and the big teams will on average win the most races and titles, but it will allow smaller teams to get on the podium more regularly on merit rather a rub of the green putting top contenders out of the race or a safety car putting them out of position at the end of the race.

I did read it, and ZB says he is in favour and lists some that would not be. However, those he lists make and develop engines, his team does not.

He mentions the traditional teams money too, and Mclaren are falling way down this list. I think non earned money should be spread better, but earned bonuses should be earned.

A base line team should have enough to stay in, but then if they expect engines, who puts the money into these? Should there be a separate championship for engines with bonuses? This then amounts to the top teams having a second bite of the cake, but for a reason other than just being around 40 years ago. ( or being called Red Bull )

There are many things to consider, and I am glad I do not have to make the decision. Then again, the team bosses maybe have their own agenda too

No doubt the difference between what they want to do and what teams will accept is apt to be large because the heavy hitters have so much invested and stand to lose the most. And their clout is much higher than it should be due to Bernie's divide and conquer strategy over the years making arrangements with individual teams.

In an earlier post you said "The best car or rather car/driver/team should win" and under the current system that happens but due to the way things are right now there's only a handful of teams that can afford to develop a car that has a chance of being the best. With a distribution of money the big teams will have less to spend and the small teams have more. While there are plenty of examples of how money doesn't necessarily mean success it sure improves the chances.

The engine/PU constructor is tricky of course. I doubt there's any way to get the manufacturers to separate their racing team from their engine building division which would be the most equitable way to even things in that vein.

In the end I think they're more talking about the difference between the over pace from the fastest car to the slowest being smaller than what it is now. After a quick look at qualifying for the first and most recent races this year the difference between the pole time and the slowest car in Q1 was 6.05 and 6.08. That is a large of a gap to bridge and it's going to be tricky to do and will take more than a couple of years. Lets hope that all of the progress is forward.

I completely agree. But much of the money is not spent on 'main' bits bit little twiddly bits of carbon sticking out that only a hand full of people ever get close enough to see. I think regs should look here. I know that what ever money they have allocated they will find a way to spend, but if the main components are kept simple there is a chance for innovation to make the difference, as long as the regs are open enough.

I used to race (many moons ago) and know I had absolutely zero chance of winning because others in the same series spent 10 times what I did on the car, which is like the lower end teams now. Some were in it for the racing, but those days seem to have passed with Manor and Minardi etc. I really can not see a level playing field now, so keeping the lower teams alive and happy is probably the best we can do.

I think cutting the top end will mean the likes of Merc will no longer find the benefit from it so we would lose a team and an engine. I really do not know what the answer is, but believe it is in the area of 'fiddly bits' if you pardon the expression because the gain is minimal. a race with an average speed of 199 mph is no less a race than one with a speed of 201 but would probably cost double digits less, and there would probably be 2 or 4 more teams competing for it.

As I say, I know its a cop out, but I would not like to have to make the decision, and I am not sure how it would affect the spectacle of racing. Over the last few decades the best racing I have seen has been between teammates. From Prost and Senna, Mansell and Alberetto Hamilton and Alonso/ Rosberg, through to the Force India boys today. maybe there should be a change of emphasis? I dread to suggest allowing top teams to supply complete cars to customers, as it is a can of worms, although we see it done with Haas and STR to a large extent

They could always put more steps on the pod....... Nah, lets not go there

I'm just hoping that they are not looking to make F1 more like Indycars were every race is basically a lottery.

This would only happen if they brought back refuelling and a Safety Car came out every time they waved a yellow flag. I don't see it happening

IndyCar is a different philosophy. It rewards consistency over a season

When you talk in terms of being Champion as being the most consistent driver given how the races are run in Indycars I think you can throw in the big luck factor as well.

Yet many fans contend that Rosberg won the WDC with a lot of luck on his side.

A certain amount of luck is present in any sport, it's when the luck is artificially introduced into the racing then that's when I start to lose interest, I don't understand why you think that everyone should be capable of winning despite their talent, that just sounds contrived.

I'm just hoping that they are not looking to make F1 more like Indycars were every race is basically a lottery.

This is not an accurate portrayal of Indy Car racing. There are top teams there that win consistently and there are minnow teams that never come even close to winning. A lottery would not be like this.

Formula one is not like football. A very good well organised team (Leicester) can beat better teams week after week especially once they get some momentum and especially when the other big teams are playing 2 games per week to Leicesters 1 due to Champions League/ Europe league commitments. Small teams also regularly beat bigger teams, Chelsea have already lost at home to Burnley and Arsenal away at Stoke.

Formula one is much more objective and ordered, if you are 0.5 a lap slower, there is literally nothing you can do. You might win a race or two in a season when the faster car has bad luck or a mechanical issue. Its unlikely to entirely dominant a race and lose, unlike in Football where this happens regularly.

Indeed but it seems that some are happy for the mediocre to win by being given a leg up, I mean how do you have a system were a slower driver has just as much chance of winning a race?

Formula one is not like football. A very good well organised team (Leicester) can beat better teams week after week especially once they get some momentum and especially when the other big teams are playing 2 games per week to Leicesters 1 due to Champions League/ Europe league commitments. Small teams also regularly beat bigger teams, Chelsea have already lost at home to Burnley and Arsenal away at Stoke.

Formula one is much more objective and ordered, if you are 0.5 a lap slower, there is literally nothing you can do. You might win a race or two in a season when the faster car has bad luck or a mechanical issue. Its unlikely to entirely dominant a race and lose, unlike in Football where this happens regularly.

Indeed but it seems that some are happy for the mediocre to win by being given a leg up, I mean how do you have a system were a slower driver has just as much chance of winning a race?

Nobody's talking about giving anyone a leg up. They're talking about making things more equitable to bring more parity to the field. Even with the field as it has been over the last few years a slower driver would have a chance to win races or even titles if they're in a Mercedes or Red Bull prior to the new PU spec, and a top driver in a poor team is lucky to score double digit points.

Look at how people talk about how much of a shame it is that Alonso is mired in the back of field because the McLaren-Honda experiment was such a complete failure, or that the Red Bull tandem has to hang around to pick up the scraps when something goes wrong at Ferrari or Mercedes. Wouldn't it be better if Ricciardo or Verstappen could win regularly on merit or FI/Haas/Lotus could get a podium without having something odd happen or going with a crazy strategy that pays off?

The more equal the cars the more the driver counts which is what most fans seem to want.